UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament

本篇文章3898字，读完约10分钟

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament ruled unlawful by Supreme Court

On September 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered a historic judgment that the prorogation of Parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson was unlawful, null and void. The unanimous decision by the eleven judges of the highest court in the land was a stunning rebuke to the government and a victory for parliamentary democracy.

The prorogation, which began on September 10 and was due to last until October 14, was a controversial move by the Prime Minister to suspend Parliament in the run-up to the deadline for Brexit on October 31. The government argued that it was a routine procedure to allow for a new Queen's Speech and the start of a new parliamentary session. However, critics accused the Prime Minister of trying to avoid scrutiny and accountability over his Brexit plans and of undermining the sovereignty of Parliament.

The Supreme Court's ruling was a landmark judgment that clarified the constitutional role of Parliament and the limits of executive power. The court held that the prorogation was not a normal exercise of the royal prerogative but was instead an attempt to prevent Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. The court also found that the advice given by the Prime Minister to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful and that it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

The consequences of the ruling were immediate and far-reaching. Parliament was reconvened on September 25, just days before the scheduled Brexit deadline. The government was forced to face tough questions and scrutiny from MPs and the media over its Brexit plans and the legality of its actions. The Prime Minister faced calls for his resignation and accusations of misleading the Queen and the public.

The ruling also had wider implications for the role of the judiciary in holding the government to account and upholding the rule of law. The Supreme Court's judgment was a powerful assertion of the independence and impartiality of the judiciary and a reminder that the government is not above the law. It was a victory for the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and a warning to future governments that they cannot ride roughshod over Parliament and the courts.

The ruling was met with a mixed reaction from the public and politicians. Supporters of the government accused the courts of overstepping their bounds and interfering in politics, while opponents hailed the judgment as a triumph for democracy and the rule of law. Some Brexit supporters saw it as an attempt to frustrate or reverse the result of the 2016 referendum, while others argued that it was necessary to prevent a no-deal Brexit and to ensure that Parliament had a say in the process.

The aftermath of the ruling has been tumultuous and unpredictable. The Prime Minister has faced renewed pressure to resign and to seek an extension to the Brexit deadline, while opposition parties have called for a general election or a second referendum. The future of Brexit and the governance of the country remain uncertain and contentious issues, with no clear path forward.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court's ruling on the prorogation of Parliament by Prime Minister Boris Johnson was a landmark judgment that clarified the constitutional role of Parliament and the limits of executive power. It was a victory for parliamentary democracy, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. However, it also highlighted the deep pisions and challenges facing the country over Brexit and the future of its governance. The consequences of the ruling will be felt for years to come and will shape the course of British politics and history.